Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FEMA May Be Eliminated

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: FEMA May Be Eliminated

#41

Post by toomuchtodo »

kcplate wrote: post #40
toomuchtodo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My answer is to let people who want to hurt themselves politically and economically proceed after we have collectively attempted to prevent these outcomes. If they get their vote till death, and they don't want to change their vote to anything productive, there is no other choice (as mental models are rigid and tribalism pressures are strong). Good luck to them, effort is better spent on people who actually care and…

> after we have collectively attempted to prevent these outcomes Who is “we” and what did “we” do to prevent “what” outcome? Seems to me if you can answer that question you might have a clue why the forest might chose the axe.

It sounds like, from your comments, that you believe understanding these people is going to enable change. In my opinion, I believe this is unlikely when you cannot appeal to irrational voters (who google "who pays tariffs" after their vote and the election concludes, who don't want Obamacare but love their ACA insurance, who want immigrants deported but don't understand that directly correlates to inflation [wage pressure and labor supply]). So why are we going to waste time trying to pander and appeal to them? What will that change? Protect vulnerable people worth protecting, good luck to the rest while we wait for a bunch of folks to age out (~2M/year 55+ voting cohort).

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/12/10-facts-...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/13/what-trum...

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/there-are-a-...

Re: FEMA May Be Eliminated

#42

Post by kcplate »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #41
kcplate wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> after we have collectively attempted to prevent these outcomes Who is “we” and what did “we” do to prevent “what” outcome? Seems to me if you can answer that question you might have a clue why the forest might chose the axe.

It sounds like, from your comments, that you believe understanding these people is going to enable change. In my opinion, I believe this is unlikely when you cannot appeal to irrational voters (who google "who pays tariffs" after their vote and the election concludes, who don't want Obamacare but love their ACA insurance, who want immigrants deported but don't understand that directly correlates to inflation [wage pr…

You hope the forest accepts advice against the axe, but it doesn’t. The answer isn’t “let those dumb trees die off”. The answer should be “what about our message of peril is so easy to ignore” or “why don’t these trees respect our authority to advise them about the danger of the axes”.

You will always have an issue if you can’t communicate obvious peril in a way that is accepted or if you lack the respect and authority that prevents your advice being heard and accepted. That’s the problem, not the forest and trees.

Re: FEMA May Be Eliminated

#43

Post by Ekaros »

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #24

Developers: America has been taken over by a bad, pointy haired boss. Suggestions on how to deal with him? Tell him what he wants to hear and continue doing what's needed? Ignore his insane announcements, just come in for work as usual and do the necessary things? Hope that he is ousted or removed somehow? Indeed.

Leave and start new startup? Solely bootstrapped.

Re: FEMA May Be Eliminated

#44

Post by krapp »

kcplate wrote: post #39
krapp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A republic doesn't work when half of the people simply vote to burn it down every four years to spite the other half. You can't just "right the ship" to correct policies this destructive. This isn't simple politics as usual.

You are making an assumption that only half the country votes to “burn it down” and that whatever side you are on is the correct one that should be preserved. It’s possible that both sides seek to destroy the policies of the other and maybe, just maybe, neither side truly has a monopoly on what is right and correct. All I hear as an independent political thinker is two sides whining that the other is dogmatic.

You're making the common "centrist" assumption that all sides are equal and all opinions derive from dogmatism and hypocrisy, yet somehow your own comments here tend only to criticize one side while justifying the other. I don't think you're as independent as you claim.

Re: FEMA May Be Eliminated

#45

Post by kcplate »

krapp wrote: post #44
kcplate wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making an assumption that only half the country votes to “burn it down” and that whatever side you are on is the correct one that should be preserved. It’s possible that both sides seek to destroy the policies of the other and maybe, just maybe, neither side truly has a monopoly on what is right and correct. All I hear as an independent political thinker is two sides whining that the other is dogmatic.

You're making the common "centrist" assumption that all sides are equal and all opinions derive from dogmatism and hypocrisy, yet somehow your own comments here tend only to criticize one side while justifying the other. I don't think you're as independent as you claim.

Interesting…I literally criticized both sides equally in the comment to which you just replied.

And for what it’s worth, I am pragmatic, not a centrist, which means that sometimes I might have an unbalanced view according to folks that believe “if you are not always A you must be B”

Re: FEMA May Be Eliminated

#46

Post by krapp »

kcplate wrote: post #45
krapp wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making the common "centrist" assumption that all sides are equal and all opinions derive from dogmatism and hypocrisy, yet somehow your own comments here tend only to criticize one side while justifying the other. I don't think you're as independent as you claim.

Interesting…I literally criticized both sides equally in the comment to which you just replied. And for what it’s worth, I am pragmatic, not a centrist, which means that sometimes I might have an unbalanced view according to folks that believe “if you are not always A you must be B”

You didn't actually criticize either, you just implied both sides had the same motives, goals and methods, and that both sides were whining dogmatists. There is a difference between the two.

Also no one has claimed "if you are not always A you must be B," here. Again, you're just resorting to platitudes and stereotypes, no actual criticism or analysis. You haven't actually refuted any arguments with anything but blithe dismissals.

Re: FEMA May Be Eliminated

#47

Post by kcplate »

krapp wrote: post #46
kcplate wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting…I literally criticized both sides equally in the comment to which you just replied. And for what it’s worth, I am pragmatic, not a centrist, which means that sometimes I might have an unbalanced view according to folks that believe “if you are not always A you must be B”

You didn't actually criticize either, you just implied both sides had the same motives, goals and methods, and that both sides were whining dogmatists. There is a difference between the two. Also no one has claimed "if you are not always A you must be B," here. Again, you're just resorting to platitudes and stereotypes, no actual criticism or analysis. You haven't actually refuted any arguments with anything but blit…

Suggesting that the two sides have the same motive, goal, and methods is a criticism. Suggesting that they are both full of whining dogmatists is a criticism.

Here is your argument, since apparently you didn’t get it from the much more brief sarcasm that started this little chain: “it’s shortsighted and frankly ignorant to suggest that destroying the most powerful country ever to exist via secession is a reasonable idea just because someone is butthurt that their ‘side’ didn’t win an election this time around and we had some hurricanes and fires this year that required significant federal disaster assistance”

By the way, my argument doesn’t change if it’s republicans talking secession or if the democrats are doing it. It’s a stupid idea.

Re: FEMA May Be Eliminated

#48

Post by jaybrendansmith »

Ekaros wrote: post #43
jaybrendansmith wrote: post #24

Developers: America has been taken over by a bad, pointy haired boss. Suggestions on how to deal with him? Tell him what he wants to hear and continue doing what's needed? Ignore his insane announcements, just come in for work as usual and do the necessary things? Hope that he is ousted or removed somehow? Indeed.

Leave and start new startup? Solely bootstrapped.

If only. Maybe spin off a division or two...
Post reply on HN